2040 Greenwood Street

SBL: 37.15-1-38Location: 2040 Greenwood StreetContact: Site Design ConsultantsDescription: Proposed 1 1/2 story commercial building and associated parking on 5.71 acres in the C-4 and R1-40 zones.

Planning Board, 3-11-2019

The board approved the site plan along with the required SEQRA resolutions and related permits with the condition that there be an approved stormwater plan (SWPPP).The board explained to several of the neighbors that the conditional approval resolution was needed before the DEP would review the SWPPP.The town engineer also has to approve the SWPPP. According to Mr. Riina, the SWPPP is designed to address a 100 year storm – a much higher threshold than is required by either DEP or town regulations. The board also explained to the neighbors that it had no authority to guarantee that the new development would not harm their septic systems and advised them to speak to town officials regarding their water problems – problems that exist now even without the new development.

Plannng Board, 2-25-2019

Mr. Riina showed a revised site plan with additional landscaping designed to provide additional screening for homeowners across the street.In response to suggestions from ABACA, the applicant is considering a deeper color tone for the building but agreed to present color swatches for the board’s approval once the applicant has selected a manufacturer for the prefab building.

The board closed the hearings. An approval resolution is expected at the next meeting.

Planning Board 1-28-2019

In a presentation, the applicant stated that the proposed new building and landscaping would be an improvement over the current site, that it would not negatively impact neighboring property values, and that the traffic generation(about 10-15 trips in peak hours) would be nominal. The site is split between two zoning districts: R1-40 (one acre) and C-4 although the opposite side of Greenwood Street is zoned R1-40.

The major issue during the hearing was how the site’s stormwater runoff would be handled. Several Greenwood Street property owners talked about current drainage problems on the street that have been getting worse. The street is in a floodplain. The applicant explained that the runoff from the portion of the site that will be disturbed for the new construction will not exceed what currently runs off from the site. Runoff from the remaining undeveloped portion of the site that flows towards Route 35 and comes down the hill from BOCES and the town owned parcel will be unchanged.

The proposed area of disturbance is in the wetland buffer; there is no encroachment into the wetland (except for a couple hundred square feet at the bottom of the driveway), although the applicant will undertake an invasive species removal management plan in the wetland that will be monitored for 3-5 years.

The applicant’s traffic study includes recommendations relating to cutting back vegetation at three locations, plus some signage at the intersection of Greenwood Street and Veterans Road.

The proposed tenant is expected to be Goldberg Plumbing, but residents of the area remained concerned about traffic impact if at some future time a different tenant leases the building.

Commenting on the proposed landscape plan, area residents expressed concern that it would take a long time for the planned trees and shrubs to grow.

Because of a deficiency in the required mailing, the hearing was adjourned.

Planning Board, 12-17-2018

The board expressed concern about the aesthetics of having the plan’s retention pond in front of the proposed new building; the plan calls for a void between Greenwood Street and the pond.The applicant explained that the location of the pond was relocated from the side of the parcel to the front of the site when the former site was ruled out because of its hydrology.Noting that retention ponds are typically not very attractive, the board asked to applicant to return with a plan for how it could potentially landscape the area between the street and the pond.

In response to the concern of ACOS (Advisory Committee on Open Space), the applicant was also asked to look at the landscaping and potential removal of trees in the rear of the site abutting the North County Trailway.

The Conservation Board has reviewed the mitigation plan for the incursion into the wetland buffer. The applicant has also met with ABACA which said it preferred a tan building as opposed to green which the applicant thought would blend in more with the site.

The applicant was asked to respond to comments from a letter from neighbors.

Planning Board, 12-3-2018

The applicant reviewed the plan with a focus on how it would impact the wetlandand wetland buffer.There will be a limited incursion into the wetland to provide access to the site.The applicant advised the board that the plan includes cleaning up an already disturbed wetland.Mr. Tegeder noted that the site housed a lime facility during World War II. The board had some concerns with what it considered the “negative tone” of the engineer’s memo and advised the applicant to address each point in the memo prior to a January 28 public hearing.

Planning Board 9-17-2018

The applicant advised the board that based on a DEP review, the stormwater plan has been changed and that a stormwater basin will now be located in front of the building and a pocket wetland will be created. The applicant said that the new location permitted a better stormwater practice. The new plan will involve the removal of some trees which will impact an abuting homeowner. The board asked the applicant to indicate the tree removal on a plan and return to the board.

Planning Board, 2-26-2018

Traffic consultant Phil Grealy advised the board that the likely additional traffic from the proposed 6,000 sf industrial building would likely generate about 10-15 additional cars in peak hour, a relatively insignificant increase given the current 280 trip count.He did, however, note that changes might have to be made at the intersection of Greenwood and Veterans Road. Noting that the board should be sensitive to the public’s concern about traffic, Mr. Fon suggested that the board meet with the Highway Department and other town officials to review possible changes, including signage, a possible 4-way stop sign and stripping.Mr. Grealy also indicated that some vegetation clearing might be needed in the vicinity of the proposed driveway in order to improve sight distance.

Planning Board, 1-22-2018

Mr. Riina explained that in response to comments at the public informational hearing and the Conservation Board, the building has been relocated and the size of the gravel parking lot reduced.The property owner still has no tenant and may not actually construct the building until he does.Mr. Riina explained that once the layout is set, his office will work out more details and will look at potential traffic impact. The board asked him to provide elevations of the proposed building, likely a butler style metal building, so that the board can determine the extent of any screening that might be needed.

Planning Board, 1-8-2018

Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants and Steve Marino, the environmental consultant for Tim Miller Associates, explained the plan. Mr. Riina indicated that based on discussions with advisory boards (note: although he didn’t name the boards, the assumption was that he was referring to the Conservation Board), the applicant is considering rotating the building so that less of it would be in the buffer and/or it would be less visible from Greenwood Street, as well as designating a portion of the gravel parking lot for future parking if needed, again to reduce the disturbance to the buffer.

Mr. Marino suggested that a clogged culvert might be responsible for the wetland conditions on the site. In response, a resident indicated that the stream is flowing. The Planning Board suggested that the Highway Department look into the condition of the culvert.

Several residents from Greenwood Street expressed concern about the project, primarily because of the uncertain nature of how the building could be used and the potential for additional noise, traffic and air polllutionb depending on the use. The owner of the abutting Hartel property, who also has a residence across the street from the site, told the board of how the Hartel site has been negatively impacted by the redevelopment of the abutting commercial property (the “red barn”).

The applicant, Envirogreen Associates, presented a concept plan for a proposed 1˝ story commercial building with an approximate 6,000 square foot footprint abutting Hartel Auto Body. Portions of the 5.71 acre parcel are zoned C-4 and R1-40 (one acre).The site contains wetlands. While the applicant doesn’t have a definitive use in mind, some of the possible uses that would be consistent with the C-4 zoning that were mentioned included a wood working shop, auto body, or contractor’s yard.

Mr. Tegeder noted that the parcel is a transitional site between two distinct zones and that an automotive use might not be the best use; he thought that a less intensive use might be better as the street becomes a wooded residential area.Mr. Kincart noted that the concept plan sited the building close to the existing commercial use, leaving the wooded part of the site as a buffer to the residential portion of Greenwood Street.